[TIK] National Socialism WAS Socialism | Rethinking WW2 History
93 replies, posted
joey don't tell me you actually believe this shit. it's really hard to believe anything you debate when you post stuff like this. it makes you look bad
I swear I can hardly keep up with these chess dimmensions
ok guys, so by this definition a lot of countries are socialist, because they have stuff like socialized healthcare, got it
Kinda sad he makes one bad video and now people here think TIK is alt-right or some shit.
There are some videos with titles I know will be terrible and I invariably estimate them. Yes, there are some elements of economic policy with what could be argued is socialist tinge, but people don't complain about Nazis because they were socialist - they complain about the Nazis because they had extremely far-right social policy.
I woke up one day and found the whole world turned socialist and the Nazi's actually took over the world without me ever realising. Must be Mandela at it again.
Who's actually saying that? Personally I just lost a most of my respect for him.
you see guys, left wingers are the REAL nazis!
sent from my iphone
Same here, but I mean even just stuff like "he caught the Tudd virus" is implying Joe is posting far right propaganda under the guise of it being "interesting" like Tudd did, among other posts here.
Joey why else do you find it interesting?
Rather than hide behind your vague excuse do you mind elaborating in detail?
I mean the thing is this specific video is basically far right propaganda. That doesn't make TIK far right (he certainly claims to be pretty centre though some of his responses to comments complaining about postmodernism seem pretty strange) but you can still make something that functionally is far right propaganda without being far right yourself. On the topic of posting this particular video I was actually considering posting it because I thought it was something I felt is discussion worthy even if I completely disagree with the video.
They really are.
Sent from my Enigma Machine.
I want to address something: Historical Revisionism is a normal process within the field. Old theories and interpretations are often rexamined under a new light, with new evidence, etc... It's how the field moves forward! He's not wrong about Revisionism being good, because without it the dominant academic thought would still be that Rommel was a saint, the Wehrmacht did no wrong, the Soviets were just an Asiatic horde and had no tactics, that in WWI the British generals were "Donkeys", etc... It's a very normal thing, and based on TIK's previous work that's what he's talking about there.
but this video? oh man TIK, what the hell, you're usually waaaay better than this.
Fascism is derived from socialism because it was invented by socialists. That being said, fascists tend to instead view themselves as "third positionists" opposed to both capitalism and communism. The reality though is that fascism is essentially racist militarism with minor authoritarian socialist elements. The end goal of fascism is a fully militarized society with all resources put towards furthering the goals of the military, thus they would both nationalize and privatize industries entirely based on which they believed would be more effective, and why even private industries had to be sufficiently loyal to the party to operate. Of course social programs which were not seen as beneficial to the militarization were cut entirely, after all in Nazi Germany even the roads were built specifically with military deployment in mind.
Problem is, I'd think you find thats literally what all of the threads on Videos, as well as SH and PD are shared for, because someone on this forum found them interesting and decided to share what they found. It's how humans work dude. If you want to ban garbage like this, ban garbage like this that is demonstrably garbage. Of course that's not going to happen any time soon since garry went "fuck it lol" and removed all the rules for forums...
I think you could make the distinction between someone posting something because it is genuinely interesting and someone posting something to deliberately push a political agenda and then disingenuously claiming afterward that they didn't do that.
It's actually a very good video, I advise everyone to watch it. In it he talks precisely about the difference between history as a science (constantly updating and as such, revisionist) and stuff like the holocaust denial.
Fascism isn't even about that. It's simply the idea of making your nation as glorious and effective as it can be, the true extremism of Nationalism. These typically result in the removal of democracy and the bureaucratic government as it's seen as ineffective and slow to respond, and a strong military that can be used to exert your supremacy over others and conquer them so you can put their resources to better use for the homeland. This is why it was such a seductive ideology for downtrodden people of a nation. These people wanted to reclaim the glory their motherland once held, and make their country great again (sound familiar?). It just so happens racism is a useful tool to go along with that ideology as if you're supreme over all others, then that means these races must be worse than the people of your country. Just take a look at the original Fascist Party from Italy. While some inside certainly held some racist beliefs, especially that races that weren't European were worse, a belief that more than just fascists had (Jim Crow *cough*), there was a rejection overall of antisemitism and no one really thought of any other Europeans as any worse than Italians, simply that Italians through their will could triumph over others and reclaim the Roman Empire. And to some extent, it worked. While we can all see from hindsight just how weak Italy really was, and woefully unprepared for war or being a great power, Mussolini had begun vastly reshaping Italy from the backwards, agrarian nation it originally was, producing one of the biggest industrial growth rates since the fascists took power until WWII, second only to Britain, increasing literacy rates dramatically through education reforms and a common school movement, securing workers rights and their families by establishing syndicates that helped protect people during the great depression, retooling the agricultural production to subsist more on energy dense breads so more people could be fed, and establish and arming, although not completely equipping all that well, a 3 million man army. It was for these reasons Germany itself was seduced into fascists beliefs (quite literally, Hitler used to send Mussolini fanmail and requests for cooperation between their movements), and it's for this reason that France and Britain saw Italy as an actual threat in the beginning stages of WWII, quickly cutting off their supplies after the Second Italo-Ethiopian war. Fascism had nothing at all to do with Socialism other than using it as another tool to make their nations great. That's all.
I always like how the right wing conflates socialism with Nazis. It seems fitting Hitler's economic policy is the main sticking point for them.
This is just downright embarrassing. He's citing YouTube videos in what's supposed to be a historical video essay. Why the fuck are Jordan Peterson, TED Talks, and the Hoover Institute his primary fucking sources for a historical argument? I feel guilty when I cite fucking Pew Research because it feels like cheating.
This guy has absolutely no fucking clue what he's talking about. He's arguing that "socialism" is about "socialization," despite the term "socialism" arising historically as an opposition to the widespread liberal "individualism" that dominated political thought at the time. The "social" of socialism, etymologically, doesn't refer to "socializing society," it refers to being social as opposed to individual and egoistic, meaning the core of socialism is sharing resources in social communities. Sharing not socialization. Then, he thinks racial underclasses are somehow equivalent to the capitalist class? What? He thinks that any class being viewed as undesirable in society is "socialism" since you have to socialize people to not like that class. Is he fucking literally braindead? Has he ever read a single piece of socialist literature? Socialism's aversion to capitalists is on the basis of equitable sharing of resources, where the value of resources is understood primarily socially for all of society rather than individually. He seems to think "socialism = getting rid of the bad guys in society to make a better society," which isn't even a misunderstanding of what socialism is, it's fundamentally fucking wrong.
This is just a wildly dishonest piece of one-sided propagandistic garbage that doesn't even attempt to engage with socialist political thought in any meaningful way. Where do people find this shit? Let's look at the economics of Nazi Germany, just for a split second - oh, they privatized state industries. That sounds very socialist, everyone knows that socialists love privatization of core industries! The Nazi Party's political power arose in large part due to partnerships with struggling major businesses, who lended support to the party in return for favorable contracts and subsidies, plus the suppression of the labor movement and the crushing of labor unions. The party encouraged the creation of cartels and large-scale monopolies that damaged small businesses. The DAF, which was essentially a federal labor union run by the Nazi Party, did behave like a fairly traditional social labor union, but actively demanded political conformity and shut down any attempts at factory control - it masqueraded as a labor union while actually bolstering the private industries favored by the Nazi state.
It should be damning enough to dismiss "Nazism is socialism!" when you look at the fact that organized labor in Germany engaged in a massive general strike in protest of the Kapp Putsch, involving twelve fucking million laborers that effectively shut down mass sections of the German economy. Guess who supported it? Basically every Social Democrat, Communist, labor activist, socialist, and left-winger in the country. Hitler landed at an airfield and was forced to disguise himself when confronted by those who were striking. One major opponent of the strike was the German National People's Party, a nationalist radical authoritarian right-wing party that basically dissolved into the Nazi Party as they gained political clout.
There is zero, fucking zero debate that Nazism is a fundamentally right-wing authoritarian ideology. If it was socialist, why did they execute communists and socialists? Why were the Social Democrats and the traditionally left-wing parties in the Weimar Republic the ones standing against Hitler's rise to power? Why did the entire right wing of the Weimar political world fold under and start merging into the Nazi party?
tl;dr this guy is a fucking idiot and 20 minutes on Wikipedia can show you why. Absolute fucking moron. This "nazism is actually socialist" meme is like saying the GOP is "the party of Lincoln" or calling the Civil War the "War of Northern Aggression." Revisionist horse-shit meant to distance modern fascists from the historical genocidal fascists that they not-so-secretly imitate. Nazism was (and is) right-wing authoritarian corporatist fascism.
until 1944, when communism started rapidly moving towards him.
Ah yes, the far right regime killing communists and leftists, sending them to death camps, exterminating every single minorities, thats the definition of socialism right there, what an eye opening, interesting reading of WWII.
Man a lot of far right garbage is being posted on this forum lately.
socialism is when big government and the more power the government has the socialister it is
...
When a channel supposedly about analyzing historical events says something as completely and fundamentally stupid and wrong as "National Socialism WAS Socialism" then you kinda SHOULD bring into question their academic credibility. Don't be stupid.
Yeah this is bizarre. I've seen a few TIK videos in the past and they seemed decently well researched but in this one he just makes bold claims with very little in the way of clarification or expansion, and as mentioned his sources are laughable. I wonder what compelled him to make this video because the politics of of the war, at least the politics outside of how wartime leaders interacted with their generals and staff, is a bit out of his wheelhouse. Very confusing.
To be fair "Dynastic Kim's Autocracy of the best part of Korea" just doesn't have the same ring to it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_eQ7weo_ys
part 2
this guy was so fucking good. he debunked shitloads of lies about the soviets, shitted on the preemptive strike stuff that suvorov spouted and then he comes and posts a massive fuckturd of a video and shows he has no understanding of politics at all. TIK literally cites alan brown, who wrote two books on allied airforces and the essay he cites is a non academic source. he got his PhD from a college that shut down in the 90s after having its accreditation revoked because it failed an academic validation inspection, also:
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/225353/654092ec-3d38-455a-90f9-f2c56eefcc37/fuckme.PNG
w e w l a d
Something seems odd about the idea that conservativism(?) is about staying away from trouble while liberalism is about going (a little bit?) to war
also, TIK falls into the "socialism is when the government does stuff trap"
So he's saying that any attempt to restructure society is socialist? So every political ideology that's ever existed is socialist, got it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.